Clayborne v. Tecumseh Department of Corrections et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting 34 Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery is stayed until further order of the court. This means that Defendants are not required to respond to any outstanding discovery requests, and Plaintiff is not authorized to serve any addition al discovery requests, unless and until the court enters an order lifting the stay. Plaintiff is not prohibited from filing a properly supported motion to obtain court approval to conduct limited discovery regarding issues raised by Defendants in a motion for summary judgment. The clerk of court shall strike Plaintiff's discovery requests (Filing Nos. 32, 33, 36, and 37) from the court file. The clerk of court is directed to set the following pro se case management deadline: May 13, 2016: check for filing of summary judgment motion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KMG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT EARL CLAYBORNE JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECUMSEH DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:15CV198

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants Scott Frakes, Brian Gage, Paul Tompkins, Adam Cropp, and
Chelsea Guiffre, in their individual capacities, have filed a motion requesting the court
“to stay all discovery in this case until after the Defendants have an opportunity to
raise the issues of exhaustion and qualified immunity” (Filing No. 34). Defendants
asserted these affirmative defenses in their answer filed on January 14, 2016 (Filing
No. 22), but state in their supporting brief that they “plan to file a Motion for
Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion, and if not successful, a Motion for
Summary Judgment on the issue of qualified immunity” (Filing No. 35). Plaintiff has
elected not to respond to the motion (Filing No. 38).
The doctrine of qualified immunity is designed to protect state actors from
monetary damages and the costs associated with litigation, such as discovery. Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982). Qualified immunity is “an immunity from
suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526
(1985) (emphasis in original). Thus, where qualified immunity is asserted as a
defense, it is within the discretion of the court to stay discovery until the issue of
qualified immunity is resolved. See Ballard v. Heineman, 548 F.3d 1132, 1136-37
(8th Cir. 2008).

The court determines that a limited stay is appropriate in this case, but as a
condition will require Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment raising the
issue of qualified immunity, either by itself or in conjunction with the exhaustion
issue, within 21 days. If such a motion is not filed within 21 days, the court will enter
an order lifting the stay of discovery. Defendants’ motion will be granted without
prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to request an order permitting discovery or granting other
relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).
The court notes that several discovery requests (Filing Nos. 32, 33, 36, and 37)
have been filed by Plaintiff in violation of the court’s local rules. See NECivR 5.4(a)
(“[I]nterrogatories, answers and objections to interrogatories, requests for admissions,
answers and objections to requests for admissions, requests to produce or inspect, and
responses to requests to produce or inspect must not be filed until needed for trial,
resolution of a motion, or on the court’s order.”). These improper filings will be
stricken from the court file.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Filing No. 34) is granted, as
follows:
a.

Discovery is stayed until further order of the court. This means
that Defendants are not required to respond to any outstanding
discovery requests, and Plaintiff is not authorized to serve any
additional discovery requests, unless and until the court enters an
order lifting the stay.

b.

Plaintiff is not prohibited from filing a properly supported motion
to obtain court approval to conduct limited discovery regarding
issues raised by Defendants in a motion for summary judgment.

-2-

2.

The clerk of the court shall strike Plaintiff’s discovery requests (Filing
Nos. 32, 33, 36, and 37) from the court file.

3.

The clerk of the court is directed to set the following pro se case
management deadline: “May 13, 2016: check for filing of summary
judgment motion.”

DATED this 22nd day of April, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

-3-